notion_search_pages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation (integration only sees explicitly shared pages) and explains the in_trash behavior. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only, 'search' implies non-mutating and it adds useful context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each contributing value: main function and return, access scope limitation, and in_trash behavior with related tool. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema is present, the description adequately covers access limitations, return type, and trash behavior. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, which are not critical for a search tool. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious in_trash parameter in detail, including the restore workflow. Query and limit are self-explanatory by name and default, so the lack of explicit explanations is acceptable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches Notion for pages the integration can access, distinguishing it from searching databases (a sibling tool). It also specifies the return type (titles and page IDs) and links to related tools, providing a clear and specific purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit downstream usage guidance by instructing to use returned IDs with notion_upload_file / list_files_on_page, and notes that in_trash=True can pair with notion_restore_page. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of notion_search_databases, though the 'pages' scope implies it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.